Bridgeton pioneer., 1887-05-12
CUMBERLAND COURTS.
The Grand Jury returns Four
teen Indictments.
Conclusion of the Garrison-Dur-
gin, and Commencement OF
the ACKNOWLEDGMENT Cases
Work Of the Grand Jury.
WEDNESDAY, AFTERNOON.

WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON.
The second day of Court passed
without incident worthy of special
notice, and the work of the session
may be said to be now fairly under
way. Lay Judge Doughty was not on
the bench at all, as he was feeling
somewhat indisposed, and his presence
was not absolutely required. Patiently
and judicially Judge Reed conducted
the course of the proceedings, and in
the forenoon listened to the tiresome
evidence of the well-worn Garrison
Durgin suit. Directly after the noon
recess yesterday he delivered his
charge to the jury in that case, and it
was generally spoken of by the mem
bers of the bar as impartial, exhaustive
and exact First placing the state
ment of facts in the case fully before
the jury anew, he advanced to the
questions of law involved, and clearly
defined the work before them. The
law of negligence, upon which Garri-
son based his suit, was fully stated, as
was also the doctrine of contributory
negligence on the part of a plaintiff,
whereby defendant is held blameless
for acts that otherwise he would be
responsible for in damages. The jury
were told that if person by his negli-
gence, although not wilful, caused
injury or loss to another, that person
so offending was responsible to the
other in an action at law, for damages;
but if the injury or loss was brought
about by the action or consent OF the
second party, or was caused by some
negligence to which he contributed in
some way, such second party had no
cause of action against the other and
could not recover damages. In this
case then, they were to decide first,
whether there had been any negligence
on the part of Durgin, in the altering,
moving and repairing of the house in
question, and if by reason of such neg
ligence Garrison had been injured,
damaged, or loss caused him in any
way. If they decided that such state
of affairs exists, their next inquiry
should be as to whether Garrison had
in any way contributed to the negli-
gence that had caused such injury or
damage. This contribution might be
by consenting, either actually or tao
lilly, to what was done, by aiding in
the work itself, or in any other manner
which forbid the conclusion that all of
Durgin's actions were objected to and
opposed by Garrison. The testimony
bearing on these points was carefully
reviewed, the required degree OF testi-
mony stated. some rubbish brushed
aside, the measure of damages, if any
were found due, defined, and then the
jury retired. 1t was perhaps three
o'clock yesterday afternoon when they
went to their room, and that the evil
dence was not so conclusive for either
party as to be overwhelming is evident
from the fact that no verdict was
easily obtainable, and that they had
to remain out over night. The result
of their deliberations may be found in
the account of this mornings proceed
ings, printed below.
With the exit of the Garrison-Dur-
gin jury, the case of Dallas Newcomb,
ct al, VS.. Furman Downam, ct al, was
called, and the following named gen
tlemen sworn in as jurors to try the
issues: Henry Spence, John W. Male,
Isaac Horner, John Biddle, VIM. A.
Cheesman, WM. s. Fithian, Ed. Shep-
pard, John A. Beakley, Geo. w.
Boody, Alfred Stathem, Smith Davis,
and VIM. L. Stevens. James Ewing
and Frank Pagan were called, but
excused.
The attorneys in this suit for the
respective parties were the same as in
the other, and Col. Potter and Mr..
Mitchell therefore continued at the
familiar table.
Opening for the plaintiff, Col. Potter
stated the cause of action to be of neg
ligence, arising from the following
state of facts. 1t appears that in the
evening of the 9Th day of January, 1886,
the sloop IN. E. Davis" owned by the
plaintiffs, sought moorings at Sites
wharf, at Long Reach, Maurice river,
some three miles from Delaware Bay;
when she reached her destination she